When Is A Distraction Not A Distraction?
-
-
I'd post funny pictures too but Cal would tell me I'm off topic and our all powerful moderator would delete them
-
Well, they'd just get deleted or edited by our magnificent ruler
-
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
-
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
Woody translation:
"sniff"
"I can't find any really cool funny pictures that don't tell the truth about Obamao"
I guess that was on topic...
and you assume I've looked, IDK why.
1) Not a liberal, and I know that confuses you. If I start posting anti-conservative pictures I might completely lose you.
2) I wouldn't know where to look for good ones. I'm not a member of any forums that just tell me back what I want to hear politically.
3) If I really wanted to find something, it'd be something you couldn't dispute. Something like graphs and charts or videos of Fox News lying/fucking up. Mean spirited pictures that don't really prove anything can be funny, especially in circles where everyone thinks like you do (cuz that's how the world works, right?). I mean, just take an issue, highlight the worst part of it, give it an ugly character and have it saying something stupid. Or just take a still of Obama, photoshop on something to help prove your point and then give a stupid sounding saying in an air bubble... all super legit and productive.
I mean, they can be funny if they are generally clever (or has a kitty in it)
-
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
-
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
Well, stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works, lol.
Believe me I understand how you can pretty much make data say whatever you want. Throw in some flashy graphics and a legitimate sounding Institute name and you can influence some people no doubt.
I don't know what "stars hasn't changed in like 60 years so I guess that works" means. Fill me in.
I think lying with statistics includes what you said, but it goes beyond what you said.
Garbage in garbage out. Distractions. We have seen so many issues presented as science that completely violate the scientific method.
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
Okay woody let me ask you this:
Do you personally believe that there is a universal right and wrong?
An actual moral and immoral?
If you do, do they conform to the laws of natural science?
And if they don't, why gripe so much about someone else's?
WSS
-
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
I meant "stats hasn't changed", cuz that book is from the 50s.
And you can make numbers say a lot of different things, you just need to look into how the data was found.
It seems like conservatives aren't the biggest champions of science, especially when it isn't saying what they want to hear.
OK "stats", I didn't want to assume.
Of course you can make numbers say anything. But if the scientific method isn't followed the whole dog and pony show is a fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the hypothesis isn't proved or cannot be found false we are left with just a theory.
Oh Woody, stab a conservative in the back with science. What will kids think of next?. Tee-hee
-
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
-
Yes, when I want to learn something science related, I make sure to ask Bunker....
But I'm wasting my time. I should go back to not responding to your posts
-
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
Thanks Woody!
-
Bunker said:
you need that time, and a lot more of it to try and disprove God. its pretty sad when a man wants to kick God out of their life just so they dont have to feel the guilt of sin and disobedience.
I explain something about science
You don't like it and don't understand it
I make fun of you
you start talking about God and sins and stuff. Wtf?
Look, if me explaining something science related really attacks your core values that much maybe you should be looking into your values and beliefs. I also have no beef with God and have never tried to disorder gods existence because that is impossible. It's also impossible to prove there is a god. You're confusing me not liking religion with me attacking a man in the sky.
But I'll take you completely going off topic as admitting I was right and you were wrong
-
Well, if you prove your hypothesis through rigorous and multiple experiments then you get a scientific theory. It's not "just a theory" in the sense that it doesn't matter and has no bearing on anything. Theories come about through lots of testing and observation and aren't just thought up for the hell of it. Saying "just a theory" in the terms of scientific knowledge really doesn't make sense and undermines the actual scientific definition of a theory.
If the scientific method isn't followed, then you may get something of value out of your experiments but probably not. It would be really easy to poke holes in the results I would imagine.
I just said the science and conservatives thing because it isn't the first time I've noticed it.
Thanks Woody!
-
Bunker said:
guilt of sin and disobedience
I'm guessing you're Catholic.
-
Bunker said:
woodpecker you always believe that yur right with that one sided pee brain of yurs. we have seen you attacking religion on a daily basis and use science or some other hypothesis to explain yur reasoning. just start looking around to see what is in plain view.
Bunker you're a moron. I firmly believe you are the least intelligent poster on this board.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this but I am starting to think you will never get it. It's pretty much pointless.
Only you could take "use science to explain your reasoning" as a negative. That's while showing you have no idea what a hypothesis, theory, law etc is.
What is on plain view Bunker? Do you see things you don't understand and yell "God did it! "? Thankfully there are people that don't do that....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login